William Yeatman

President Obama also directed the Department of Transportation to publish the regulations implementing the higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for new cars and trucks that were included in the anti-energy bill enacted in December 2007.  Either granting the California waiver request or implementing the new CAFÉ standards should be enough to make America’s domestic auto industry a permanent ward of the federal government. It appears that Obama is determined to do both and to pour however much money it takes to keep Detroit going.

The well paid lobbyists for wind and solar energy producers deserve a round of applause—they did a great job.

There is, however, one small kink: The House and Senate disagree on how to give this money away.

According to E&E News, legislators on the House side want to fund up to 30 % of the construction of renewable energy projects, using grants, or direct give-aways. On the Senate side, leading members of the party in power are indicating that grants are an inappropriate mechanism to pick winners and losers in the energy business. They would prefer some other pork delivery format, probably a refundable tax credit, which is but a grant by another name.

The only good news is that the House and Senate have a history of jurisdictional disputes over give-aways to the renewable industry. Maybe they’ll get so worked up with territoriality that they’ll prove resistant to compromise, and this crummy stimulus bill will die.

1) longer-term economic incentives including extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for five years or more,

2) funding for energy efficiency programs – such as retrofitting buildings,

3) federal funds to flow to states that allow utilities to treat energy efficiency comparable to new supply; states that adopt energy efficiency resources standards to achieve energy savings goals; or, states that adopt strong building codes to encourage energy savings, and

4) that part of the funding in the stimulus package should be directed toward modernizing and improving the electric grid system.

Today, two days later,  Al Gore, The Climate Protector, testified to the Senate Foreign relations Committee of the need for:

1) renewable tax credits and “small” grants for wind power and solar,

2) energy efficiency and conservation,

3) decoupling (giving utility companies a guaranteed source of revenues and Gore’s declared “single most important measure”), and

4) the need for a new electric grid.

He also frequently mentioned solar energy (an extremely expensive source of energy), deforestation (big area of carbon trading) and soil carbon credits (they need the farm votes).

“Former Vice President Al Gore has warned that we need to examine the financial interests of people in the global warming debate. Fair enough,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell. “What we discover in looking at the policies that Mr. Gore advocated in his Senate testimony is that they will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers, who will be stuck with skyrocketing energy prices.”

Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management, states that its investment strategy, in part, is to “find, fund and accelerate green business.” The companies targeted by renewable energy subsidies, grants and other federal spending are the same ones Gore and his partners are betting on to turn large profits. There’s nothing wrong with making a profit, but doing so at taxpayer expense rather than in a competitive marketplace is generally considered cynical and greedy – far from the disinterested environmental activist image that Gore presents to the world.